In a sense I'd like to agree with Lofty.
I posted previously talking more about completing night overwater ops safely using technique, training, and technology. Of course, "safely" is relative and in truth danger continues to exist. This is where I begin to agree with Lofty. If I had a wish list, it wouldn't include wishing that I get sent out to do some of these missions, thinking only of myself.
However, I'm not entirely selfish. I like rescuing people. I like living in a country where people are prepared to accept some danger to help others in distress. I even enjoy some of the riskier missions due to the challenge and personal pride of successfully completing same.
I also have limitations, a family of my own, and a desire to continue living. I can't and won't complete every mission. Some people that need the service will die if situations aren't ideal. Maybe new technology will reduce that number, but will never eliminate it.
To balance all of this with what Lofty said, I think the starting point should not be "what equipment do we need?". The starting point should be "Which missions should we be able to complete?". Once that question is answered, then you must fit your machine and crews with what is required, as has been discussed. If you can convince your country that losing the victims that can't last through the night is acceptable, when you consider the cost of properly equipping the machines and the risk to the operators, then don't provide any rescue service at all. Like what Lofty said.
Matthew.